Baptism with grace

[sue moore]

What a wonderful orthodox community! I am a catechumen who (God willing) will be chrismated on Palm Sunday. I was baptized 30 years ago by a church that was part of the 'Jesus Movement.' I recently spoke to a monk who thought that I should be rebaptized because he didn't believe that my baptism was accompanied by grace and there were no exorcism prayers. My priest says my baptism is acceptable because it was done in the name of the Trinity. I have spoken to a Serbian, Greek, and Antiochian priest and they are not allowed to rebaptize someone like me. I worry that God may disqualify me because of this. I am so unworthy

[Archimandrite Gregory]

Dear Sue, +May the LORD strengthen you and bless your entire life! God will NEVER "disqualify" you---because He LOVES you---loves you so much that He willingly accepted horrible suffering and death on the cross so that you can be with Him in Eternity forever! The Church will 'fill with grace' anything lacking in your former baptism and it will be as though you were baptized perfectly. Place all your trust in the Lord and have no fear or anxiety, for He loves you!

In His Holy Name,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory, who asks for your holy prayers!

[Melissa]

Dear Sue,

Welcome! How wonderful, to have your Chrismation approaching!

You will find ideas and answers to your baptismal questions, I have no doubt, from the priests you consult and from some of the people here, too, perhaps. But I don't think you have to worry - ultimately God will read your heart, and you are obviously desiring to open your heart to Him. He will notice.

God bless you!
Melissa

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Sue,

Fr Gregory's advice is very good & trustworthy so mine is to only add that small 'two cents' more.

It is the Church that adds grace to what is weak by the means She deems is needed at the time. Remember that the martyrs were baptised in their blood which the Church considers a full and proper Baptism even though the 'normal, legal' aspect of the Baptismal service was missing.

In Christ- May God lead you into His true & Holy Church and guide you forever.

[Olga]

Dear Sue

Welcome! As I understand it, there are situations where a person simply requires chrismation to become Orthodox, such as for converts from Roman Catholicism or (possibly) Anglican. Others may require full baptism (triple immersion, chrismation etc), where their original baptism is not considered close enough canonically. I am therefore disappointed, if not alarmed, that you have been told by priests that you are, because of your previous religious affiliation, ineligible for baptism! I'm sure the clergy and monastics who regularly post on this forum could enlighten you further and put your mind at rest.

[sue moore]

Thank you Father Gregory and Melissa for your blessed words of encouragement. This time of preparation has been a roller coaster for me-bubbling with joy at the goodness of God one moment and then despairing of my sinfulness the next. Father Gregory is it really true that the church will ' fill with grace what was lacking in my former baptism?' Oh joyful hope!
Sunny

[Br Paul]

My Dear Friend Olga,
When I converted from being a Roman Catholic to Orthodoxy,I was told that it was up to the Bishop, how I would be accepted into Orthodoxy. Archbishop Hilarian (ROCOR) who baptised me, decided to give me the works.Triple immersion, Chrismation. It didn't worry me that I had to be re baptised again. I was just happy to be Orthodox. If this is what the Archbishop wanted, so be it.
I hope to see you soon in Adelaide at the Monastery, please God, Easter.
Br Paul

[Archimandrite Gregory]

GLORY BE TO GOD FOR ALL THINGS!

Dear Sue, +May the LORD bless you always! It has always been the teaching of the Church that she is the 'storehouse' of grace and that she can and does (like every good mother) make available to us all the gifts of God that we will need for our salvation. Orthodoxy’s strong position on Apostolic succession and the place of the bishop as the “fountain of all the sacraments” entails that the ecclesiastical hierarchy is a necessary instrument in effecting regeneration (as in baptism) and all the other sacramental means of grace for the participation in theosis and salvation. "‘The dignity of the bishop is so necessary in the Church,’ wrote Dositheus, ‘that without him neither the Church nor the name Christian could exist or be spoken of at all . . . . He is a living image of God upon earth . . . and a fountain of all the sacraments of the Catholic [universal] Church, through which we obtain salvation. If any are not with the bishop,’ said Cyprian, ‘they are not in the Church.’” So in your case, the bishop's decision will be the will of God for you in regard to your Holy Baptism and that Holy Mystery will fill with grace everything that was lacking in your first 'baptism.' May that day be for you THE happiest day of your life...because on it, you will die and rise and become a citizen of Heaven, a child of God, an heir of the Kingdom, and an inheritor of the promise!

Your brother in Him Who calls us,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory, who asks for your holy prayers!

[Justin]

Sue,

At first I was confused by what you said, since I figured it wouldn't be impossible to do a baptism in such a case, considering that the Rudder allows for a corrective baptism (and before someone asks: no, I'm not reading the Rudder, I read that in one of the lives of the Saints http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif ). Then I realised that it was my presumption that was causing my confusion! It's up to the bishops to decide how canons are applied... and so whatever the bishop says goes (and a priest or potential convert can't disobey him).

[sue moore]

Dear Father Gregory and everyone!

Your kind responses have brought me to tears. I confess I have been filled with fear in this matter of baptism. I tremble when I think I might have perished without having known about orthodoxy. I even now struggle with fear that I will die before I am chrismated. I know this is unbelief. What a terrible sinner I am. I realize I must not trust enough in God's love for me. He has done so much and I have been so unfaithful.

I have so much to learn. Thank you, thank you for your prayers.

Save and have mercy on your people, O Lord

Sunny

[John Curtis Dunn]

There is another way which this question may be addressed, "Why would you not want to be baptized in an Orthodox manner?"

Of course, the question assumes that whatever form of baptism you were given outside of Orthodoxy was not the form of baptism of Orthodoxy, [One baptism with three immersions, one "in the name of the Father," one in "and of the Son", and a third in "and of the Holy Spirit."]

When my mother was a catechumen, we briefly discussed the issue of baptism. I wanted her to very much experience the joy of entering into the Holy Font and coming up a new creation in Christ. For me, it had been a 'clean break' with my past, a cutting off of the old man which however sincerely and earnestly had pursued knowing Christ and Him Crucified, had yet to enter into the joy of Christ, the Bride of Christ, which is His Church.

Orthodox Baptism was the giving of the wedding Garment thrice washed clean and made white as snow. For me, (though I understand not everyone will agree with this), to choose not to receive an Orthodox baptism, was like the bride going to her wedding in a Wal-mart dress. Yes, its fresh and new, the colors are bold and sharp, but it isn't the traditional white wedding dress (I know, I have been told not all cultures wear a white dress, but I am using the symbolism to express how I felt).

For some, being "traditional" is the burden which they cannot bear. For some, having something "non-traditional" makes them feel free and un-constrained by "man-made rules" or that other frightening word "legalism." For me the door of Orthdox Tradition was a way of freedom, for others it seems it was a way of constraint.

Actually, the onus is rarely with the one being baptized, but more often with the Priest or Bishop who has made the decision to recind the obligation on the grounds that it might "offend," or actually appear that we are saying those outside of the Church are not "the Church." This is perceived as being "pastoral," which for some means being loving and considerate of the feelings of others.

Please understand, I am not judging those Bishops, for they will have to answer Christ who happened to include in his teaching, "Whosoever then shall break one of the least of these commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of the heavens."

When the catechumen comes to be baptized or received through Chrismation, he/she is not teaching, but simply submitting to the teaching of that Bishop. For me, the circumstance which lead me into Orthodoxy enabled me to ask the questions which lead me to desire baptism. When I came to the Church and was made a Catechumen, I desired to be baptized, but I did not approach the Church with the condition that I must be baptized. However, I did seek a Church where my being baptized was a probability and I was glad when they said, "Let us go into the House of the Lord" through the door of Baptism.

What about my mother? Her experience was different. My discussion prompted her to ask the Priest of the Church where she had been made a catechumen. She had asked him, "If I become Orthodox, do I have to change anything I believe?" He had told her, "No, nothing." She asked whether she needed to be baptized, since she had been baptized as a child, and then again as a teenager, and then again as an adult, each time through one immersion in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Upon hearing this he chuckled and said, "Your baptism will do just fine." And so she was received by Chrismation.

As Orthodox Christians we sing, "All who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ."

My mother truly believes the Orthodox Church is the "truest Church of Christ" and in that she is correct. But there is also a gray line of demaration in her mind between what divides the Orthodox Church from the rest of the christian churches of which her own siblings and my siblings remain members. This gray line leaves open the possibility that they also are members of the Church, since they also were baptized into Christ through sincere non-orthodox faith in Christ.

Is that latter sentiment true, meaning Orthodox? Is her Bishop responsible for her sentiment? Is the Priest who received her responsible for that sentiment? No doubt, her Bishop and Priest would confess Orthodoxy as the true faith and that the Orthodox Church is the true One, Holy, Apostolic Church of Christ. And if quieried and pressed would deny that the baptism outside of the Orthodox Church makes a person a member of the Church, but are they responsible for my Mother's belief that it might?

It seems to me, they are culpable for that belief. For they have a responsibility to instruct/teach the truth of Orthodoxy. For some, the question or issue of baptism is a little issue, for some it is a major issue and there have been a few who have argued bitterly between themselves, to the point of exclusion. That is both parties in the argument have excluded the other from being in the Church. To some, it appears more certain that those who necessitate an Orthodox baptism for everyone are no longer members of the Church, and for the latter, those who would Chrismate a non-Orthodox form of Baptism the sentiment is returned.

This is a sad state of affairs and can be a cause of stess, distress and confusion for anyone seeking to enter into the Church who becomes aware of it. Some want to keep this controversy quiet and thus keep the catechumen ignorant of the issue(s) and subsequently after their chrismation as well.

This latter group must be kept unaware so that they do not lose faith in their Chrismation and begin to doubt the Church.

Who is responsible? Justin Kissel has written that it is up to the Bishops to decide, and I guess that is true. But until you have actually been received into the Church, you also have a choice, and as you learn, an obligation to query into the meaning and consequence of the Bishop's teaching (decision). You should ask, "What does the Bishop's decision that I do not need to be baptized mean? Some might not like these questions being asked, because it sounds threatening, but they are legitimate questions, especially since you have posed them here.

john dunn

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John Dunn,

Thank you for your well thought-out and, I feel, very Orthodox and legitimate questions concerning how we are received into the Church.

As someone who has been in jurisdictions on both sides of this issue I can say that it certainly at times has provoked heated debate and condemnations such as you suggest. I also must agree that the effects of constantly denying the deeper issues behind this question of how we are received also in the long run do not work. 1)Rejecting the need for Orthodox Baptism 'end of story', does suggest that this is not the True Church and can justify a kind of minimalism in piety (since we are not REALLY any different). 2)yes the acceptance of the bishop's word can also be problematic since we do not accept that the bishop's word is like that of a Pope; obedience is based on the bishop being faithful. For these reasons I believe that this question cannot simply be swept under the carpet and that sooner or later how we were received will return again to confront us.
But I did encourage Sue to go forward with her Chrismation. Why is that? Because God brings each of us to that particular parish where we can grow in Him. In other words growth in Christ cannot and should not be seperated from particular place and people. Secondly, although it may be better to be Baptised, Chrismation is a valid and fully sacramental way of entering the Church- i.e. for those who were received this way there is no need to ask, "Am I really Orthodox?" Yes- you are. (This was told to me by Athonite elders who favour Baptism).

Now when we look at the issue pastorally, practically we can see that the two points are inextricably connected- how we are received and where we are received cannot be seperated. Of course we can keep looking for a more 'correct' parish; but in my experience since so many other issues besides Baptism can enter into what constitutes 'correctness' the real effect is choosing a place out of self-will.

Those who receive us are 'culpuble for their belief' as you say. But so are we. Just because where God brought us to has warts and weaknesses we are not called to say this 'doesn't matter' on the one hand nor leave on the other. Rather being aware of our other-worldy ideal we must pray and go forward so that each of our parishes and monasteries shines with the uncreated Light of Christ. The questions John I think are to the point- but the answer is to remain and take up our cross and follow Him.

In Christ- on the weekend of the Sunday of the Veneration of the Life-Giving Cross-
Fr Raphael

[Melissa]

Dear John Curtis Dunn, and others -
Your post #170 raised some questions for me. I'm not sure I've understood these issues well, but my sense is that we're supposed to submit humbly to the decisions of our Bishops and priests, because they are responsible for teaching us about Orthodoxy, in the way they instruct us. Because Orthodoxy does not presume the infallibility of her clergy, they may sin, and any sin that may be in their instructions is on them, so to speak (they will answer to God for them), not on those who follow them sincerely. (I mean no disrespect here; we trust our priests, bishops, etc. to be always growing in their own faith; repenting and being forgiven, and striving to lead us in the most faithful ways.) Some catechumens simply are not going to be able to be baptized; and I understand there are dangers in baptizing when the earlier baptism may have been done in the name of the Trinity. In the end, I believe God will read the hearts of the people involved, and the humble catechumen will be received into the Church by God, no matter how perfectly/imperfectly His humble servants accomplish the ceremony.

On another consideration - I haven't had any Orthodox priest tell me that people who are sincere believers but not Orthodox are in danger of not being joined with Christ for eternity. That they are not memebrs of the One, True, and Holy Orthodox Church, yes. What I've been taught, though, is that we all are responsible for living our faith as it is revealed to us. And for living it fully, always open to the voice of God revealing more of the truth. If due to growth in faith (revelation) we must leave one church, say a Protestant church, and become Orthodox, then we would be risking eternity not to heed the call. In other words, we're responsible for what is revealed to us (So if we become Orthodox and leave, we're also in danger).
My questions is, have I understood what I've been taught within the Orthodox Church, in an Orthodox way?
Thanks to anyone who might care to respond.
I would like to also ask for your prayers - I have a hard time during Lent, and would appreciate your support.
In Christ's love,
Melissa

[sue moore]

Glory to God!

To all who responded to my query concerning baptism. Some things have happened and I may yet be allowed an orthodox baptism. I will know in the next few weeks. Since I am ignorant and unlearned in orthodox ways I simply continue to ask God for His mercy and trust in His love for me. I know I have been helped by your prayers and insights and I thank you all and offer my humble prayers for you in return.

Dear moderator,

If this is too personal of a response would you let me know? I am new to the chat world and do not want to offend.

Sue

[Justin]

John,

I think they are legit questions as well. And normally I would strongly support baptism if there is some question. In fact, I'm in a situation right now in which I might have to be baptized after having been chrismated Antiochian a few years ago. I just didn't want to help add to concern if the decision(s) had already been made, as I've found (from personal experience) that some decisions can only be made as you think about things over a length of time (ie. you can't persuade someone to do something they aren't ready or willing to do). But I'm glad you came along and added what you added.

[Gilbert Gandenberger]

John, It is my understanding that there are specific, clear-cut canons regarding baptizing/not baptizing those coming into the Church from other sects and/or heretical groups, that are very ancient. The Church had differences of opinion on this issue, and early in her history resolved these in Council together.

I hope there are those among us who know & understand the details and can share them with us; my memory is that this was a major issue with the Novatians, and St. Cyprian was involved in the resolution. I believe it was defined that baptism in the name of the Trinity, by a schismatic (or even heretical body) that held the proper Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, was considered a valid baptism and it is wrong to re-baptize. And by this I do not mean wrong for the one baptized, but wrong for the one doing the baptizing. If the schismatic or heretical body did not hold to the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, then re-baptism was necessary.

In matters such as these, our bishops are to judge the situation of individuals in light of the canons and traditional practice of the Church, not come up with their own ideas.

If others could help clarify, it would be appreciated.

[sue moore]

Dear Melissa,

I read in your post that you have heard that there are dangers in being rebaptized if you had previously been baptized in the name of the Trinity even if the church was heretical. Do you have more information concerning this?

Also does anyone know a book of orthodox "etiquette" that explains some of the do's and don'ts of proper greetings and salutations. I found info on how to greet Priests and Bishops in the proper way, but what about greetings and leave takings of laypeople. I was told by an orthodox seminary graduate that we should say,"Christ is in our midst" with the response, "He is and ever shall be." Then I read on a thread that was only for those who served at the altar and not appropriate for lay people. Is there a big difference in orthodox etiquette between jurisdictions?

Thank you,
Sue

[Waldemar]

On the Question of the Order of Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church, Coming to Her from Other Christian Churches
By Archimandrite Ambrosius (Pogodin)

Originally published in Russian in Vestnik Russkogo Khristianskogo Dvizheniya
(Messenger of the Russian Christian Movement)
Paris-New York-Moscow, Nos. 173 (I-1996) and 174 (II-1996/I-1997).

http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch0.html

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Gilbert,

I cannot claim to be an expert on the canons of the Church concerning Baptism. I have read the canons involved, listened to my bishop(s), read books and papers. The fact of the matter is that there may be specific canons concerning Baptism that come from specific Councils but these do not in fact provide direction for us that is 'for all times and every place.' Councils often dealt with local issues in ways that were proper for that time and place; also (as the writings of the Holy Frs make clear) each local church and at times different bishops dealt in different ways with the very same heresy or schism. Why is this? Of course we all agree that a non-Christian should receive a full Orthodox Baptism if he comes to the Church. But what of those who are Christian and yet non-Orthodox? Here I think that in reality discernment is used and not an over-all rule. Of course a Synod of Bishops or our local bishop decides what to do and we try to follow this; but in fact our bishops are also using their discernment, guided only in a general sense by the canons.

An example of how discernment in fact is necessary is shown by the very example you provide: you say that a Baptism by non-Orthodox 'in the name of the Trinity' is valid. You then go on to say 'that held the proper Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.' In fact many Christian denominations baptise 'in the name of the Trinity' but in fact NONE except the Orthodox holds correct doctrine concerning the Holy Trinity. (ie the filoque- which was condemned as heretical by our local councils).

The truth of the matter is that the Church does not hold any sacramental action outside of Herself to be 'valid'; for only what is of the Church gives forth what is sacramental. This is crucial for us to understand for its actual basis is that Christ is One and His Truth is One. To believe that sacraments are 'everywhere' is literally to end up implying that Christ's truth is not One.

This however does not deny the fact that the Church practises economia. What does economia mean? It means that the Church has the inherent power to use Her discernment to apply the Commandments of Christ to specific people & circumstances; also it can cover what is incomplete and make it complete. Both of these in fact can and are applied to Baptism.

In each of our local churches the synod of bishops gives guidance to the flock on how the non-Orthodox are to be received into Christ's Holy Church. But in fact each synod has different guidelines. Also in my experience each bishop has different ways of applying these guidelines and then each priest also applies the general 'rule' in different ways. This is by no means a 'do what you want' attitude (for the most part). Rather it is part of that common Orthodox effort to discern how to manage the 'doorways' into the Church and to respond to the actual unique condition in which each individual person approaches Christ.

Just an example of how this economia works in real life. A few years ago I had a situation involving a couple in our parish: the wife was Orthodox, the husband Eastern-rite Catholic- he was dying in the hospital. The wife who is Orthodox deeply desired that her husband repose in the Faith. I belong to a jurisdiction that is quite strict about applying Baptism- but how to do this with the poor fellow lying prone in a hospital bed? So I phoned the residence of my bishop- after a short conversation I was advised to give the rite for Baptising a child that is dying- which is to say I simply blessed water in the Name of the Trinity and then Baptised by 'sprinkling'.

Hoping this illuminates the issue somewhat- in Christ- Fr Raphael

[John Curtis Dunn]

Each of us can only grow in the soil we are planted. This is self-evident, and the health of that growth is dependent in part upon the quality of the soil in which one is planted. God, in his tender mercies, can nurture that growth by his abounding providence, causing the sun, rain and even darkness to increase the health and fruitfulness of each planting.

It is wiser for those like Mrs. Moore, upon learning about a cause of division within our Orthodox Church [and it has divided] to face those now, not after she becomes a member. I have known serveral who having learned of this division and becoming persuaded one way or the other then began to become like tumbleweeds, rolling whichever way the wind is blowing them. She needs to be fully convinced in her mind that the path she is choosing is the Orthodox Path which she desires.

The subject was broached through a conversation with a monk . The subsequent conversations with the Priest which made her a catechumen among others (Serbian, Greek and Antiochian) failed to alleviate her confusion and seemed to also play into her doubt of her own worthiness to enter the Church. I have seen a few people who approach the Holy Fount and Chrismation expecting salvation on demand, so there is room within the catechumen stage of spiritual awakening for a healthy dose of self-examination and subsequent questioning of being worthy of entering into the Church.

The parable of the soil clearly informs us that there are those who are unworthy and wither and die, even though they had been sown by the Sower Himself. I am sure that I am not alone in having been asked to become the sponser-God-parent of someone who latter abandoned the Orthodox path, but we hope and pray for better things for Mrs. Sue Moore.

The question of Baptism is more often a question of failure to instruct and a haste to make someone Orthodox, that latter sometimes seems to be a mirror of some Protestants Church growth programs by adding to their marquee "1000 souls saved." The truth being probably more that we accept the verbally expressed sincerity of the inquirer without conducting our own inquiry into the worthiness of the person seeking entrance into the Church. We don't want to keep anyone out, but the reality is that not everyone is ready to become Orthodox, even if they are currently expressing the desire.

The sad reality is that the Joy of entering into the Church for some has been muted by their previous entrance into whatever christian group they belonged, especially if this entrance was through a rite of baptism. I don't mean the joy is less than real, but that the meaning of baptism making all things new for them is lost in their conviction that they are in fact worthy of entering into the Orthodox Church. They can point to their prior baptismal rite as proof of that worthiness and to suggest the rite itself was performed in a manner not Orthodox is perceived as a questioning of their sincerity and fidelity to Christ. Becoming Orthodox is like a crowning acheivement in their Christian spiritual journey rather than the true beginning of that journey.

But the problem is less with these than it is with the race to make Orthodox Christians out of people who have not wholly desired "Orthodox or Death." That latter being a choice of martyrdom, a category even catechumens can enter if they die being faithful to their confession. This latter point should be a comfort to catechumens like Mrs. Moore who sincerely desiring to enter the Church, fear they may die before being made worthy.

That latter means is accomplished through the Holy Fount of Baptism, where the catechumen is washed clean. Properly instructed a catechumen can and should come out of the Holy Fount with a conscious conviction that through those waters all things are made new, he or she has trully become a new creation in Christ. She or he is now worthy to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, because she or he is clean.

Does the act of being made a Catechumen convey this theology? If so, certainly not through experience, since the catechumen does not experience the wettness of death and the sensation of being brought through this by the hand of the Priest. The knowledge of the experience can be conveyed verbally, but Orthodoxy is not just about mental experiences of assent to a doctrinal truth.

We don't just believe the Saints pray for us, we bow and prostrate ourselves before their Icons, by which our assent becomes deeds. This is to say, we experience Orthodoxy.

I am not questioning the Orthodoxy of those who have only had their Protestant/Catholic rites chrismated, but I can not in good conscience affirm that an Orthodox Baptism is not necessary. And for the most part, neither can the Priests or their Bishops who Chrismate alone. For they must through some path justify their actions by saying they have [i]baptized the Protestant rite by their episcopal economy.

john dunn

[Melissa]

Dear Sue,

The issue of the danger has never been well explained (to me) - but someone else said in a response that the danger is to the officiant, not to the person being baptized. That makes sense to me, because sometimes we just don't know how a baptism was conducted. Nevertheless, we have to follow the decision of our priest and bishop, don't we? That's part of the submission and humility... Perhaps someone else can give us both more information about this.

I think it bears repeating - God will read your heart. I feel a little differently than some, I think, because I don't believe a person has to have every Orthodox issue clearly understood and accepted before becoming Orthodox. What I have come to believe is important, is that the Catechumen feel satisfied that God is leading him/her to the Church. After that, some struggle with certain tenets of the Church that seem hard, unfair, etc., undertaken with humility and submission, will assist the newly chrismated to mature. We can't understand Orthodoxy from the outside, it's in living it that it's power to heal and change us occurs. Some of the things I found hardest at first, I now understand differently.

Sue, I hope not to further confuse or perhaps discourage you. You are embarking on the most wonderful time of your life, if you choose to go ahead and be received into the church, whether by Chrismation or Baptism. Please remember that it's God who accepts you; obey the Church to the very best of your ability; if you continue to place Christ first, before everything, all will be well. He will lead you, for isn't He the Good Shepherd, and the Only Lover of Mankind? (To paraphrase) I wish you the very best. Be happy in your chosen faith, Sue.

Affectionatley, in Christ's love,
Melissa

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John Dunn, (also Sue, Monachos Community),

The note of caution you share with us concerning Holy Baptism is very much to the point. There is much that we can question in the motives both of those who have come into Christ's Church and of those who brought them in. What is the problem? Chiefly worldliness, not having a recognition of what the Church is and of how distinct it is- you refer to this I believe- yes, the deepest conversions occur with those who truly convert, 'start all over again'.

But acting with economia does not always mean one is acting from worldly motives- quite the contrary. If we look carefuly through the canons we will see that perhaps economia is as much of a 'rule' as applying the standard of Baptism. We deeply desire that all should come fully to Christ but this must and can be done only through what that person actually is and according to their actual state. Think of the sacrament of confession & communion; how we apply the sacrament must be shaped according to where the person actually is 'at.' Economia is not the 'chrismation of Protestant/Catholic rites'; it is the completion or filling of what was incomplete.

The truth of the matter is that 'falling away' from the Faith is as prevalent in those jurisdictions that consistently require Baptism as those who do not? (I believe I can say this since I have been in both types of jurisdictions). Why? Baptism is proper in itself but it does not guarantee the motives of those who enter the Faith or even of those who minister the Sacrament. The 'numbers game', worldliness of spirit; believe me- none of this is absent simply because of Baptism.

From here I want to point out two things that were stated that we must be very careful about: of course there is a danger if on the one hand minimalist standards are being asked of us when we come into the Church and on the other we do not take our lives in Christ seriously. This goes without saying. But we should never think that our entry into the Church was not 'valid' because of the weakness of human motives. The danger is one of sin, not whether something sacramental occurred. That is why if there was ever anything 'weak' on the human level when we came into the Church, the correct course of action is to pursue a serious life in Christ; not to question in anxiety "am I really Orthodox?"

Secondly John if Orthodox tradition itself provides for the properness of Chrismation only in certain cases why resist this? And why question bishops and priests unless we are sure their motives were worldly? Again we are never 'baptising' what is "protestant" for it is simply not possible to baptise the negative; rather we are baptising the positive desire of the person to come into the Church of Christ regardless of the weakness of their past.
"On Sunday, February 12/25, 1962...Eugene was received into the Church...When at the end of the Liturgy Eugene received the Eucharist for the first time, the grace of God was miraculously made evident to him." Who was this Eugene? Fr Seraphim Rose. The priest who received him had been instructed by Archbishop Tikhon, "to receive him through the Sacrament of Chrismation." (Fr Seraphim Rose: His Life & Works; ps 199-200).

How we are received into the Church sacramentally speaking does matter; but all of it is for naught unless we commit ourselves to a life, "not of this world."

In the love of Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Averky]

Dear Friends in Christ,

Warmest greetings to all! I have just returned from yet another five day stay in the hospital. I was again taken to the ER for a very virulent infection in my peritineum, which is painful beyond words. Imagine, if you will, a small wild animal trapped in your body cavity, attempting to claw and chew and violently gnaw its way out! God in His love and mercy has visited me again...Glory be to God for all things!

I must admit that I cringe every time the subject of baptism vs.chrismation comes up, for it can rapidly descend into little more than a legalistic battle of words. Dear Father Raphael, earlier, I mentioned that in most cases, it is the local bishop or ruling Synod of Bishops which sets the policy for all parishes within their jurisdiction as to how converts are fo be received. As we well know, most of the SCOBA bishops have arrived at the policy of not baptizing any convert who earlier was baptized "In the Namd of the Holy Trinity.

It must be made very clear that the Baptism of converts is by no means "re-baptizing" them, for the Nicene Creed confesses "one Baptism for the remission of sins." This term of "re-baptizing" is part of the misunderstanding which has caused so much confusion.

The Roman Catholics see Baptism as entrance into the Church by means of having Original Sin washed from the soul. Orthodoxy also considers Baptism as not only entrance into the Church, but the washing away of sins. I also mentioned that having been baptized, I experienced the spiritual joy of being immersed three times in the Water, and had the pysical sense of all the sins of my former life being washed away. So too, when I was anointed with the Oil of Gladness, did I feel glad, as I received the the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit. Because of the immersion in water, the Mystery of Confession is seen as an image of baptism, for the Christian soul, sullied by sin, once agains emerges from the soul-saving waters of baptism, for absolution "washes away" our sins, restoring to us the possibility of Eternal Life.

As I mentioned in my first response, when I embraced Orthodoxy in 1969, the policy of Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco was to chrismate. By 1969, after the aftermath self-destruction and a new pluralism, even within the Roman Catholic Catholic Chuirch, and the formation of new theological novelties in the main Protestant confessions, the Synod of Bishops of the ROCA issued a directive to all parishes and monastic houses stating that converts were now to be received by baptism. However, in their wisdom and mercy, the bishops of the Russian Church in Exile also stated that if a person seeking entrance into the Orthodoxy, for any number of good reasons, could not bear or accept being baptized, then of course, that person could and should be received by chrismation, with no distinction being made as to reception. After all, the whole point is to bring souls to salvation, not to hinder them from it!

A good example I can give is a woman who lives in neafrby Syracuse, NY, whose husband at one time had been a "priest" in the esoteric group calling itsetf the Holy Order of M.A.N.S. An Irish-American, as an infant she had been baptized a Roman Catholic; later, she was baptized by the Order, then when that group, now calling itself "The Brotherhood of Christ the Saviour" was spurilously brought in by Father Herman, she was baptized into Fr. Herman's form of "independent" Orthodoxy. After her husband and I had come to know each other, and after I had met the entire the family, they decided to join the Russian Church in Exile. After meeting with them, Archbishop (now Metropolitan) Laurus expressed his desire for the entire family to be baptized. The woman balked at this, firmly stating that being baptized three times was enough, and she would not accept it again. When I presented how she felt to Vladika, he understood, and on the same day, with his holy blessing, we baptized the husband and the three children, and then chrismated the wife along with the rest of them.

The only Orthodox whom I have encountered who make much about baptism vs. chrismation are the extemist elements, such as the group calling itself HOCNA a dwindling body born out of schism, and the majority of Old Calendar Greeks, who maintain that if a man especially, was received by chrismation alone, then he can never be ordained a priest.This would have meant that someone like Fr. Seraphim Rose would never have been ordained, and what a loss to monasticism and to the Orthodox world that would have been. Fr. Seraphim Rose was received into Orthodox Church through Holy Chrismation by the decision of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco.

Beloved brothers and sisters, let us put aside any differences we might hold on this question: God will show us mercy, not for our individual "theological prowess," but for our love and repentance. This is the holy season of repentance, so let us be careful lest we cast even a shadow of doubt in the mind of one who anxiously and heartfully awaits the blessed day when she becomes part of the Body of Christ, let us pray for her, comfort her, encourage her, and not confuse her with tidy and "logical" considerations. Too often we approach questions asked on Monachos with ourselves in mind, and not the effect that those answers might have on others. Every time I become so dreadfully ill, like I did last Monday, I think, "Will this be my last trip? Will I come home, or will I be called to answer for my life? No matter how hale and hardy we might seem, every minute, we stand in the shadow of Death, and we do not know wehn we will be called. Pascha is less than a month away, but perhaps there are those among us who will not see that day. Living neither in the giddy delusion that we are "Saved," nor the dark gloom and doomthat we are all evil sinners, and will be condemned, let us put on "The armor of Light," as we will soon relive the Passion and death of our Saviour, followed by thy the eternal joy of the Bright Resurrection of Christ, living out our lives with the desire, which we show by faith and works, that we believe "in the resurrection of the dead, and life everlasting." Amen!

Dear Sue, foregive me by my making references to groups who have marginalized themselves by various problems, basically disobedience to their rightful bishops. You are in a newly-proclaimed Autonomous Church whose roots are from one of the respected and holy ancient patriarchates, and may God bless you richly as you prepare to embrace Christ's True Church. The road will not always be easy, for Orthodoxy is not a "feel good" Church, but one which embraces the Cross. I am so excited to think that soon it will be your first Pascha. Please pray for us!

With love in Christ,

hieromonk Averky

[Melissa]

Welcome back, Father Averky.
Melissa

[Janice Chadwick]

Yes, we are very thankful to have you back, Father Averky. You are a real blessing to us, and we miss you when you are gone. I am thankful that you are feeling better.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Fr Averky,
Well Father that about sums things up I would say! Very good. I pray that Christ supports you in your sufferings. Good to see you back!
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr. David B. Sedor]

> Fr. Averky, > May I join the rest of the Monachos.net community in welcoming you back. Please know that you're in our prayers.

Fr. David

[Trudy Ellmore]

Dear Fr. Averky:

Allow me to selfishly add my "welcome back" to the chorus of the rest of the community. You are ever in our prayers and we love you.

Glory to God for all things!

With love in Christ,
Trudy

[Maximos Darnley]

Dear Fr Averky,

Thank you so much for that clear summation of the question of Baptism for those of us that are converts.

Having perused some of this discussion I was about to take it up with my spiritual Father. Probably I still will discuss the matter since I fall into the categfory of someone who was previously Baptised. I willingly accepted Baptism and Chrismation in the RCOR, particularly since I had led a life so far from the Holy Trinity.

I feel that my Spiritual Father is likely to say much the same things as you have written.

In appreciation,

Maximos

[John Curtis Dunn]

Fr Raphael Vereshack posted:
"Economia is not the 'chrismation of Protestant/Catholic rites'; it is the completion or filling of what was incomplete."

Forgive me, is not Chrismation a completion or filling of what (even after Baptism) yet remains incomplete? If this is true for our Orthodox Baptism, can it be less true when it follows after a Protestant/R-Catholic rite by an Orthodox Bishop/Priest?

The Baptism of many Protestants assumes the gift of the fullness of the Holy Spirit is given with Baptism (The Jesus movement in which Sue was baptized generally did not). Yet, this assumption is not received by the Orthodox Church as having any significance.

What if a learned inquier/catechumen questioned the requirement of Chrismation on the basis that they had already received the fullness of the Holy Spirit in their Protestant rite of Baptism? If the Church could waver the rite of Baptism on the grounds of economia, why can it not do the same towards Chrismation?

In the Protestant Tradition from which I came out, Baptism was considered in precisely that manner. The Baptismal rite conferred forgiveness of sins (albeit, the Western idea of Original Sin). Furthermore, it was also identified as being the rite of the new-birth, i.e., the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new fashioned according to Christ. We whole heartedly could concur that "All those who have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." So, from that traditions perspective, for one of its members to enter into Orthodoxy and receive baptism and Chrismation was to repeat what had previously been accomplished, only in a different form.

Now, if a catechumen coming out from that Protestant tradition seeking entrance into Orthodoxy, perhaps because he was moved by the Divine Liturgy, was waived on his/her baptism, since it was performed in the name of the Holy Trinity, when does he cease being a Catechumen and become a Baptized Orthodox Christian?

It cannot be claimed that he was not baptized, which seems to place him into the category of a newly washed and regenerated Christian, waiting for Chrismation. However, when accepting the prior Protestant Baptism when is that which Orthodox Baptism gives (forgiveness of sins and regeneration)received in the rite of Chrismation? (By when, I mean how as well as what point?)

If all that was missing in the Protestant Baptism was the seal of the Gift of the Holy Spirit (meaning the actual giving and receiving of that most precious of all Orthodox Gifts), what does that convey to the catechumen? Does it not convey the acceptance that a right faith was being held? And if the point is pressed, does it not in fact lead into a minimalistic standard of what is faith?

These questions are not asked to raise doubts about validity, they are actually pastorial issues which can and ought to be addressed while a person is a catechumen (assumming some maturity of thought). Each Protestant baptism carries within itself its own baggage, and if left unopened and unexamined, the enemy can use its contents as a weapon of mass destruction. For very often those who fall into doubt about their "validity" will be taking someone else with them. I know of whole families who have been uprooted because one member became entangled within this web.

But in these matters I bow to your Pastorial experience, mine is more as an observer. It was Sue who raised this issue and who expressed doubts, not doubts about the validity of her reception into the Church, but about her worthiness to be received. The confusion arose in her own mind, and by her explanation it appeared that it was not alleviated by the Priests explanations?

Why are some kept back from the Holy Font and offered only the gift of economia? I do not ask it that way is not to disparage the gift, for the efficacy of the Gift comes from the Bestower. I personally know people who have been denied baptism when they desired it, being told that economia was enough for them. Yet, the water which runs between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is not as clear as some would make it.

I know, for me I wanted to be Baptized, for it chased away all residule doubts and anxieties which can haunt the catechumen. I know for my dear Orthodox Mother, (who quite literaly raced me into Orthodoxy) the joy of entering Orthodoxy by Chrismation filled her heart. I did not thwart that joy, though I longed for her to desire what I had found. Yet, I have no doubt that she and I are equally Orthodox Christians.

In Sue's case, the issue came up with her (from whatever source) and needs to be addressed so as to remove future doubt. I do not know Sue, perhaps she is stable minded and not easily side-tracked by "what if's", but the issue being raised is resolved by removing the possible future growth of doubt, i.e., Holy Baptism, which can also be administerd as an economia.

Of course, to do so might mean the Priest will have to labor more diligently teaching others who are shaken when they see or learn of it. And that seems to be where the problem begins and ends..." The Bishop rarely knows the details of what a Catechumen needs, this is why he has appointed a Priest.

Forgive me,

john dunn

[John Curtis Dunn]

Re-write: "I do not ask it that way is not to disparage the gift, for the efficacy of the Gift"

I meant, " I do not by asking it in this way mean to disparage the gift..."

john dunn

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear John Dunn,

In going over my post I see I did not explain what I had in mind very clearly. I don't mean the Church makes complete or fills the non-Orthodox 'baptism' that the person received before coming to the Church. I mean the Church completes the reception of the Holy Spirit by the PERSON who is received into the Church. I was thinking about the person received more than the service; and I was focusing on the grace they obtain when they are received. The rite is important; but it is only a vehicle through which the grace of the Holy Spirit is poured out on the newly-received person. The Holy Spirit is the absolute part; not what ritual we receive.

What we are trying to say is that the Church is sovereign; She is not chained to Her sacraments as if they are Her masters. She is sovereign because She is the Body of Christ Who is the Master; that is why the Church in absolute freedom through her ministers the bishops & priests can determine how a person is received: water, immersion, sprinkling, chrismation, or blood(for the martyrs). In fact this is the basis of that discernment I spoke of earlier in my last post which I suspect is behind all the canons.

This ability to use discernment-economia does not imply that this is not the One Church. In fact thought about in light of what was said above this demonstrates all the more that She is the One True Church. Of course we as humans (both clergy & laity) may be confused. But this can no more diminish the reality of the Church than I can hold the ocean in my hand. Let us then through repentance strive to overcome our weakness in perception while at the same time focusing on the grandeur and gift that Christ offers us through His Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Fr Averky]

John Dunn,

Too many words, too little repentance, and using "logic" rather than the seeming lack of logic which is Godly.

I repeat, this is a time for all of us to look deeply into ourselves, and consider our sinfulness and our lack of love, obedience, patience and obedience. Poor Sue and Trudy, their heads must be twirling like tops!

At this point we are beginning to beat the question to death. Again I repeat, it is not how much we "know" which will save us, but how we have loved, had faith, and backed up that faith with salvific good works. Chrismation is a completely different Mystery, just as confession is completely different from communion; it is possible to go to confession and have no intention of receivng the Holy Mysteries.

Chrismation is that Mystery in which the Holy Spirit descends upon the newly illumined, for all Mysteries require the action of the Holy Spirit to be complete; during the Divine Liturgy, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity are expressed and invoked.. The celebrant says: "Holy art Thou and most holy, Thou, and Thine Only-begotten Son, and Thy Holy Spirit; art Thou, and most holy, and majestic is Thy glofy, O Thou Who so loved the world that Thou gavest Thine Only-begotten Son, so that whoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have life everlasting:" then, we repeat the words of Institution: "Take, eat, this is my Body...."

Then we pray to God the Father, saying to Hi, "Again we offer unto Thee this rational and bloodless service, and we ask of Thee and we entreat Thee: Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these Gifts set forth." "O Lord, Who at the third hour didst send down Thy most Holy Spirit upon Thy apostles: Take Him not from us, O Good One, but renew Him in us who pray to Thee..."

Having invoked each Person of the Holy Trinity, the priest blesses the bread and wine and the Holy Spirit descends upon them, and they become the Body and Blood of Christ our God.

All Mysteries of the Church require the action of the Holy Spirit, for it is the action of the Holy Spirit which confirms and completes the Mystery. When a person is joined to the Holy Orthodox Church by chrismation, his formal baptism has not been accepted as "true, but the Holy Spirit by His action, confirms that that the person has "joined himself unto Christ."

In our present sinful state, we cannot even hope to understand the depth of the Mysteries, all of which are a "Divine Economia" granted us by a loving and merciful God. With our feeble hands and voices, let us "Rejoice and be glad," accepting with awe and humility what God has granted us.

[Fr Averky]

Beloved Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Thank you for your warm words of welcome and your continued prayers. So far, I have spent about half of 2004 in the hospital. Please continue to remember my unworthiness in your prayers, for I will have minor suirgery for the removal of a cataract in my left eye, which will be at 10:00 am on Monday of Holy Week. Not long after that, I will have the cataract on my right eye removed as well.

I take much comfort in the knowledge that so many good Christian people remember me, for God graciously accepts their prayers and continues to show me mercy, even in my wretchedness

May God richly bless each and every one of you! Be assured of my weak but love-filled payers for all of you. I pray especially to the Most Pure Mother of God to keep you safe from the wiles of the Evil One.

With much love in Christ our God,

Unworthy
hieromonk Averky

[John Curtis Dunn]

Too many words, too little repentance, and using "logic" rather than the seeming lack of logic which is Godly.
----------------------

Now that is a twist, I am generally accused of being illogical. From now on I shall simply reply, "No, no, you have confused me with another, I am no Saint."

Ahhh, there's the proof of the pudding, I have made a logical deduction and now I am doing it again...

I did not encourage Sue, and Trudy to doubt their reception into the Church, neither did I invite them to bombard with questions their respective Bishop or Priest. I whole hardily accept and believe that it is not "how much we know" which will save us, did I suggest otherwise?

"Faithful are the wounds of a friend"...i.e., surgical skills are required.

john dunn